{"about":{"site":"https://codewithpapers.app","non_affiliation":"Code with Papers and Syntology are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Papers with Code, Meta, or the pwc-archive mirror.","licence":"CC BY-SA 4.0","licence_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode","attribution":"https://codewithpapers.app/attribution","modified":"archive material modified by Syntology; see the attribution page"},"url":"/paper/llms-are-bug-replicators-an-empirical-study","title":"LLMs are Bug Replicators: An Empirical Study on LLMs' Capability in Completing Bug-prone Code","arxiv_id":"2503.11082","date":"2025-03-14","proceeding":null,"authors":["Liwei Guo","Sixiang Ye","Zeyu Sun","Xiang Chen","Yuxia Zhang","Bo Wang","Jie M. Zhang","Zheng Li","Yong Liu"],"abstract":"Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in code completion. However, the training data used to develop these models often contain a significant amount of buggy code. Yet, it remains unclear to what extent these buggy instances influence LLMs' performance when tackling bug-prone code completion tasks. To fill this gap, this paper presents the first empirical study evaluating the performance of LLMs in completing bug-prone code. Through extensive experiments on 7 LLMs and the Defects4J dataset, we analyze LLMs' accuracy, robustness, and limitations in this challenging context. Our experimental results show that completing bug-prone code is significantly more challenging for LLMs than completing normal code. Notably, in bug-prone tasks, the likelihood of LLMs generating correct code is nearly the same as generating buggy code, and it is substantially lower than in normal code completion tasks (e.g., 12.27% vs. 29.85% for GPT-4). To our surprise, 44.44% of the bugs LLMs make are completely identical to the pre-fix version, indicating that LLMs have been seriously biased by historical bugs when completing code. Additionally, we investigate the effectiveness of existing post-processing techniques and find that while they can improve consistency, they do not significantly reduce error rates in bug-prone code scenarios. Our research highlights the limitations of current LLMs in handling bug-prone code and underscores the need for improved models and post-processing strategies to enhance code completion accuracy in real-world development environments.","url_abs":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.11082v1","url_pdf":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.11082v1.pdf","source":{"archive":"pwc-archive (Hugging Face), CC BY-SA 4.0","snapshot":"2025-07-28","licence_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode","row_kind":"links_only","authors_date_abstract":"arXiv metadata, CC0 1.0 (https://info.arxiv.org/help/license), from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12"},"code_links":[{"paper_slug":"llms-are-bug-replicators-an-empirical-study","repo_url":"https://github.com/glwhappen/llms-bug-replicators","is_official":1,"mentioned_in_paper":0,"mentioned_in_github":0,"framework":"none","reach":null}],"tasks":[],"methods":[],"datasets_introduced":[],"methods_introduced":[],"results":[],"syntology":{"atlas_url":null,"mcp":null,"developers":"https://syntology.ai/developers"},"arxiv_metadata":null,"syntology_extracted_results":null}